Avoiding self-organized extinction: Toward a co-evolutionary economics of sustainability

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 10 October 2014, At: 00:13Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World EcologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

Avoiding self-organized extinction: Toward a co-evolutionary economics ofsustainabilityJohn GowdyPublished online: 24 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: John Gowdy (2007) Avoiding self-organized extinction: Toward a co-evolutionary economics of sustainability, International Journal of SustainableDevelopment & World Ecology, 14:1, 27-36, DOI: 10.1080/13504500709469705

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469705

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However,Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for anypurpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsedby Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13504500709469705

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469705

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Avoiding self-organized extinction:Toward a co-evolutionary economics ofsustainability

John Gowdy

Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, New York, USA

Key words: Biodiversity, climate change, co-evolution, collapse, generalized Darwinism, Walrasianeconomics, well-being, world systems analysis

SUMMARYThe critical problems that scientists warned about decades ago are now upon us. There isa near universal consensus that global warming is human-caused and that its effects arenow accelerating. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption is now well-documented. Theglobal connections between social disruption, resource use and environmental degrada-tion are now all too familiar. This information is all the more disturbing in view of thewell-documented collapse of scores of past civilizations whose cultural patterns of behav-iour have been described as ‘self-organized’ extinction. Policies to deal with the issues ofsustainability have been hampered by a one-dimensional economic theory that has untilrecently dominated pubic discourse. Using the concept of ‘generalized Darwinism’, thispaper focuses on the contributions a revitalized science of economics can bring to thesustainability debate. It ends with a cautiously pessimistic assessment of the prospects forsustainability.

‘True crises are those difficulties that cannot be resolved within the framework of thesystem, but instead can be overcome only by going outside of and beyond the hstoricalsystem of which the difficulties are a part.’

– Immanuel Wallerstein, World Systems Analysis (2004: 76)

‘No matter how cynical you get it’s hard to keep up.’ Woody Allen

INTRODUCTION

Most current analyses of sustainability focus onone particular thing to be sustained, for example,particular ecosystems or economies, the humanpopulation or biodiversity. Sustainability for mosteconomists means sustaining the output of marketgoods and services (Solow 1993). Biologists are con-cerned with maintaining the planet’s biologicaldiversity and supporting ecosystems. Others are

concerned about a deteriorating climate, continu-ing rapid population growth, the widening gapbetween rich and poor, disintegrating social institu-tions, and now the destabilizing effects of politicaland religious terrorism. It is increasingly clear,however, not only that these crises are intercon-nected, but also that they have the same root causein a particular set of human cultural institutions

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14 (2007) 27–36

Correspondence: John Gowdy, Department of Economics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy,New York 12180, USA. Email: [email protected]

27

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

and belief systems now dominating the planet.This core set of beliefs — radical individualism,insatiable wants, natural order — have a historygoing back hundreds if not thousands of years(Sahlins 1996). In the mid-twentieth century thesebeliefs became embodied in Walrasian economictheory. I use the term Walrasian welfare economicsto describe the school of economic thought thatcame to dominate economic theory in the decadesduring and following WWII. It is also known asgeneral equilibrium theory, The New WelfareEconomics, or neo-Walrasian economics. Thegeneral term ‘neoclassical’ is used by most criticsof economics, but today many economists whocall themselves neoclassical are strongly critical ofthe Walrasian system (for discussions of the demiseof Walrasian economics, see Bowles and Gintis(2000) and Koning and Jongeneel (1997)).

The basic tenets of Walrasian economics includethe notions of ‘economic man’, social welfare beingequated to market consumption, and efficiency as ascientific (‘positive’) goal. These notions drive thecall for more economic growth, the global expan-sion of markets, and the complete commodifica-tion of nature as solutions to all social andenvironmental problems. The prevailing view ofworld leaders today, echoing the belief patterns inthe declining periods of numerous failed humansocieties, is that the only way to deal with mountingsocial and environmental problems is to intensifythe patterns of behaviour that led us to our currentenvironmental and social crises (Diamond 2005;Turchin 2005). This optimistic view is in contrastto the many empirical studies showing that inten-sification cannot be a perpetual process. Eventu-ally, escalating crises force paradigm changes insocio-economic systems.

This view is being challenged from within theeconomics profession by empirically-based modelsaddressing the complexity of human behaviourand economic production. The dominant viewis also being challenged by a recent but growingbody of work examining the historical dynamics ofentire societies (Diamond 2005; McDaniel andGowdy 2000; Turchin 2005; Wallerstein 2004).This work looks at the co-evolution of individualand social behaviours (Bowles et al. 2002) as well asthe co-evolution between human systems and thenatural environment they ultimately depend on(Diamond 2005; Gowdy 1994; Richerson and Boyd2005).

Before we define how the term co-evolution isused it is worthwhile to consider the magnitudeof the conflict between the current human andnatural systems and the resulting crisis in humansustainability. The effects of human numbers andeconomic activity on the rest of the planet are trulystaggering. Most are familiar to readers of thisjournal but recent evidence about two immediatecrises — climate change and biodiversity loss — isworth a quick review.

It is well-established that the increase in CO2

levels from about 280 ppm in the 1800s to 380 ppmtoday is due primarily to human economic activity.This increase is unprecedented during the lifetimeof our species. CO2 levels have not been above300 ppm for at least 400,000 years. During theHolocene (the past 11,000 years) CO2 levels did notfluctuate more than 20 ppm, until the birth of theindustrial revolution. Especially alarming is thesharp increase in CO2 levels in recent years. Inrecent decades the increase in CO2 levels has beenabout 1.5 ppm a year. But in 2002, 2003 and 2004the increase jumped by 2.1 ppm, 2.5 ppm and3.0 ppm, respectively (Brown 2004, atmosphericCO2 peaks in March and April). The increase in thepeak for April 2005 returned to 1.5 ppm so thelong-term trend is unclear, but even with no sur-prises, climate change models show an increase inaverage world temperature of between 3.0°C and5.5°C by the end of this century. Recent modelingsuggests that increases in the upper part of thisrange may be the most likely (Hansen et al. 2005).Climate change of this magnitude is particularlyalarming given the importance of climate deterio-ration in the collapse of past human societies(Diamond 2005).

Along with climate change, another recurringfactor in the collapse of past societies is the human-induced loss of renewable biological resources. Inthe past, human-induced biodiversity loss wasconfined to local ecosystems such as Easter Islandand Mangareva. Today, catastrophic species extinc-tion is global. The average rate of species extinctionover the past hundred million years has amountedto only a few species per year. New species evolveat a rate of about one per year. It is estimatedtoday that the extinction rate is between 300–3,000species per year. This rate is accelerating rapidlyand we have built up an ‘extinction debt’ that willpush this rate up to tens of thousands per year(Tilman et al. 1994). According to some estimates,

Avoiding self-organized extinction: Toward a co-evolutionary economics of sustainability Gowdy

28 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

over the next century as many as half of the Earth’sspecies will either become extinct or will existonly as non-functional remnants (Meyer 2004). Anumber of biologists have reached the conclusionthat nothing can now be done to change this re-organization of the planet’s biomass (Terbourgh1999). Life on Earth will continue to be abundantbut it will be a collection of homogenized speciesselected to be compatible with the global humanpresence. Human activity in the last 100 years or sohas set the course of evolution for the next millionyears at least.

The human impact on the planet’s physical andbiological systems was intensified by several ordersof magnitude with the widespread adoption ofagriculture some 8,000 years ago. This impactreached another level of intensity with the adventof the industrial revolution some 200 years ago.This revolution in productive capacity and socialorganization has been supported by a particular setof cultural myths and values glorifying materialconsumption and economic growth. Over thecourse of the twentieth century these key myths ofWestern culture became embodied in economictheory. Yet developments in contemporary eco-nomic theory offer hope. Dissatisfaction with thebasic premises of economic theory have been com-monplace since neoclassical economics appearedover 100 years ago, but they have had little or noimpact. Recently, however, the tide is beginning toturn largely because the most telling criticisms ofWalrasian theory are coming from within the main-stream of the economics profession (Kahneman2003; Stiglitz 1994) and, most importantly, they areempirically-based which makes them impossible todismiss out of hand.

The concept of co-evolution used in this papersimply refers to the historical and evolutionaryconnections between individuals, human socialgroups and the natural world. To most non-economists these connections are self-evident. Buteconomic policy is driven by a worldview thatignores these connections. Standard theoryassumes that consumption and production can beanalyzed ahistorically and without reference tosocial and environmental context. Experimentaleconomics, including behavioural economics andgame theory, is revolutionizing the way economistssee the world and role of the human species in it.

Rejecting the Walrasian straightjacket thatenveloped economics in the mid-twentieth century

does not constitute a total rejection of economictheory. A return to the basic principles that stilldefine economics can make the field relevant onceagain to the sustainability debate. The core princi-ples that defined classical economics are: theimportance of individual incentives, production asa physical process limited by natural resources, andthe recognition that individual behaviour is thekey determinant of social outcomes. Building onthese insights can shed light on the prospects forenvironmental, economic and social sustainability.The current move toward economic realism hasopened the door to a co-evolutionary perspectiveby revealing the social and evolutionary natureof consumption and production.

THE RISE OF EXPERIMENTALECONOMICS

In recent decades the theoretical foundations ofWalrasian economics have all but collapsed. Itstwo pillars are a self-regarding model of behaviour(economic man or Homo economicus) and an equallyatomistic model of production (perfect competi-tion) that ignore the social and environmentalfoundations of real economic activity. These twobuilding blocks are essential to the general equili-brium framework supporting contemporarycost-benefit analysis and economic prescriptionsfor sustainability. Both pillars have been demol-ished by theoretical intractabilities and empiricalfalsification (Gowdy 2004). Without Homoeconomicus and perfect competition it cannot bedemonstrated that competitive market outcomesare efficient (the First Fundamental Theorem ofWelfare Economics) and therefore interventionto correct ‘market failure,’ that is to establish the‘socially optimal’ efficient outcome (the SecondFundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics), hasno theoretical basis. This means that there is notheoretically justifiable basis for standard cost-benefit comparisons of even strictly economicsustainability (Gowdy 2004, 2005).

Three recent developments within main-stream economics have great relevance for a co-evolutionary perspective on the sustainabilitydebate. These are (1) the rejection of radicalindividualism embodied in economic man, (2)growing dissatisfaction with the neoclassicaldepiction of the production process, and (3) the


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 29

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

recognition that human well-being (utility) cannotbe equated with market consumption.

Consumption is a social process

The key assumption that holds the Walrasian systemtogether is that human behaviour is self-regarding.If individual choices are influenced by others in aninteractive way the conditions for optimal allocationin the Walrasian systems cannot be established.There will not be a determinate solution to themathematical model of consumer behaviourbecause the optimal level of consumption for eachconsumer depends on the consumption level ofothers (Henderson and Quandt 1980, 297). TheWalrasian system has been clearly demonstrated tobe theoretically inconsistent; welfare judgmentscannot be made without considering the socialcontext of human decision-making (Ng 1997). Ifthe self-regarding premise is dropped, the wholelogical and mathematical superstructure of theneo-Walrasian system collapses.

The current revolution in the economic theoryof behaviour began when economists started toempirically test their theory’s most basic assump-tions. When this was done in cooperation withother disciplines the Walrasian model failed its owntest of success – it failed to predict real economicbehaviour. Even the most sacred ‘laws’ of supplyand demand are now subject to intense scrutiny,putting into question the obsession of economistswith price incentives as the key to optimizing socialwelfare. Incentives do matter, but not only priceincentives. In fact, price incentives may not be themost efficient means to change market behaviourand, at times, can have quite perverse conse-quences (Frey 1997). Rather than assume fixed andindependent preferences that respond in predict-able ways to price signals, economists have begunto stress the pervasiveness of other-regardingpreferences and the importance of an individual’spersonal history, interaction with others, and thesocial context of the individual choice.

The fact that preferences are social also calls intoquestion the standard economic concept of ratio-nality, that is, individuals on average form correctbeliefs about the outside world including thebehaviour of others. On the contrary, we know thatmost people form their beliefs based on everythingfrom imperfect information to cognitive limits toreligious indoctrination. Aggregate behavioural

outcomes may be influenced by the presence ofa small number of selfish or altruistic individuals(Camerer and Fehr 2006). New economic modelsof other-regarding behaviour and the recognitionthat individual incentives are context-dependentcan offer a more realistic foundation for sustain-ability research and policy than the standardeconomic model.

Production is a biophysical activity

The classical economists (Marx, Malthus, Mill,Ricardo, Smith) recognized that production is aphysical process using capital, labour and naturalresources. But the fact that production requiresphysical inputs (natural resources and labour) waspushed aside and, over the course of the twentiethcentury, the categories ‘land’ and ‘labour’ weremore or less banished from the theory of produc-tion. Everything became a kind of capital with theemphasis on ‘technology’, an amorphous conceptmore like the abstraction ‘utility’ than the reality ofphysical production. This is clear in the notion ofthe neoclassical production function. Consider thewidely used Cobb-Douglas production functionQ = AKαL1−α where 1 > α > 0. The parameter A isconsidered to be ‘pure technological change’,independent of productive inputs. Technology inthe neoclassical system is some sort of amorphousforce than can increase the productive power of theeconomy without limit. If the usual assumption isinvoked that there are no diminishing returns totechnology, there is no need to worry about thescarcity of productive inputs. Any particular scar-city can be overcome by applying more of themysterious force called technology. So in theWalrasian model, not only is utility independent ofsociety and the biophysical world, so is production.Not only is the agent of consumption a ‘homo-geneous globule of desire’ (Veblen 1898: 389), thatdesire can be satisfied by a ‘homogeneous globuleof technology.’

The standard response of economists to environ-mental threats is to insist that technology and sub-stitution will solve any problem. Typical isEasterbrook’s (2005) review of Jared Diamond’sbook Collapse. Easterbrook’s technological uto-pianism borders on the hysterical: ‘Above us in theMilky Way are essentially infinite resources andliving space. If the phase of fossil-driven technologyleads to discoveries that allow Homo sapiens to move



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

into the galaxy, then resources, population pres-sure and other issues that worry Diamond will beforgotten.’

The problem of accounting for nature in stan-dard economics is exacerbated by the fact thatstandard economics has no real theory of produc-tion. Neoclassical production theory is not a modelof production but rather a theory of how a givenamount of resources are allocated. Neoclassicalgrowth theory models merely allocate growth ratesof inputs, or ratios of growth rates, rather than theinputs themselves. These models do not depict pro-duction in any engineering, physical sense. Follow-ing the approach of Walras, they ignore time as anunfolding historical phenomenon.

Ecological economists have made progress indescribing the relationship between economicactivity, social institutions and environmentalfeatures using input-output analysis and systemsof social and natural resource accounts. Theextended version of input-output analysis, theSocial Accounting Matrix (SAM), gives a conciseview of economic activity and the interconnectionsbetween economic sectors, household characteris-tics and social institutions. A further extension withnatural resource accounts (NRAs) provides for asupporting environmental/natural resource basein terms of inputs and outputs. Economic, socialand environmental transactions are captured byIO, SAM, and NR accounts, respectively. With aquantitative description of these flows, a SAM-NRAmodel can be used to analyze complex scenarios ofeconomic, social and environmental change.

Recently, a number of economists have taken aco-evolutionary approach to modelling humanactivity, economic activity and biophysical inputs.Building on the work of Georgescu-Roegen andothers, Giampietro and Mayumi (2000) have devel-oped a model that looks at the structure of thehuman economy in terms of two primary produc-tive inputs: human labour power measured inhours per year and energy measured in Joules peryear. From these two factors a number of relation-ships can be calculated characterizing the energymetabolism of a society mapped against humanactivity. Hall (2000) has constructed economic/biophysical models for a number of countries andhas used basic ecological and energy relationshipsto examine their prospects for sustainability. Thevoid left by the demise of the Walrasian system isbeing filled by realistic models of the economy

that recognize the importance of culturally condi-tioned behaviour and environmental constraints(Gowdy and Erickson 2005).

Subjective well-being, not consumption, isthe best measure of social welfare

A central tenet of economics is that well-being(happiness or utility) can be equated to income.With the ascent of Walrasian economics in themiddle of twentieth century the ‘utility function’describing individual happiness in broad termsbecame the ‘consumption function’ describing theallocation of a scarce resource (income) among anarray of available consumer goods. In recentdecades researchers in a number of disciplines havedemonstrated unequivocally that happiness andincome are only weakly correlated. Happinessdepends on a complex mix of cultural condition-ing and inherited predispositions. Psychologistshave long argued that well-being derives from awide variety of individual, social and genetic factors.More recently, economists have made significantcontributions (Easterlin 2001; Frey 1997; Ng 1997).Methods have been devised, tested and calibratedto accurately measure levels of happiness acrossindividuals and across cultures. The existence ofsound, scientific measures of well-being has madeit possible to determine directly the maincontributors to well-being.

About one-half of the variation in self-reportedwell-being can be explained by inherited predispo-sition. Among the non-inherited factors, incomeis important but not overwhelmingly so. Peoplein wealthier countries are generally happier thanpeople in poorer countries (Diener et al. 1995), buteven this correlation is weak and the happiness datashow many anomalies. A consistent finding is that,past a certain stage of development, increasingincomes do not lead to greater happiness. Forexample, real per capita income in the USA hasincreased sharply in recent decades but reportedhappiness has declined (Blanchflower and Oswald2000). Similar results have been reported for Japanand Western Europe. Studies of individuals alsoshow, past a fairly low income level, a lack ofcorrelation between increases in income andincreases in happiness (Frey and Stutzer 2002).Security seems to be a key element in happiness.Large welfare gains would come from a focus onimproving welfare based on those things that



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

increase individual security, like health insurance,old age security, employment and job security.Mental health is also a crucial factor in happiness.Frey and Stutzer (2002) and Layard (2003) argue,based on happiness survey results, for more publicspending on mental health, especially for the veryyoung since apparently the first few years of aperson’s life play a large role in their future happi-ness. Richer social relationships generally makepeople happier. This implies that welfare gainsmay be obtained from increased leisure time, andmore public spending on social and recreationalinfrastructure. Finally, there is a well-establishedlink between environmental quality and inter-action with nature, and subjective well-being(Welsch 2002).

The implications of this research for sustain-ability are enormous. Not only is the obsession withgrowth and consumption leading to environmentalcrises from global climate instability to worldwidebiodiversity loss, it is not increasing social welfare.There is even evidence that persons more con-cerned with material gain are actually less happythan the general population (Kasser 2002). Typic-ally, economists assume there is a trade off betweeninvesting in environmental quality and immediateeconomic consumption (Solow 1993). In thisframework, spending more money for environ-mental protection reduces welfare because thatmeans sacrificing some consumption of marketgoods. But the new well-being research shows thatreducing consumption (across the board) for thosealready well off may be a no cost or even win-winpolicy. Furthermore, in terms of human social evo-lution, having abundant leisure time was appar-ently the norm for most of human history. Humanslived as hunter-gatherers for something over 95%of the time our species has existed. Ethnographicevidence from historically existing hunter-gatherercultures indicates that hunter-gatherers worked onaverage only a few hours per week to obtain themeans for survival. The current work week in indus-trial economies — ranging from 35 hours in West-ern Europe to 60 hours in China — is certainly farabove the norm in terms of human history (see thepapers by Lee, Sahlins, Woodburn and others inGowdy 1998).

Can these new co-evolutionary approaches toeconomic behaviour and physical production leadus to a sustainable society? The worldwide culturalobsession with increasing material wealth is not

creating a happier society as promised and is dra-matically altering the life support systems of theplanet. So why is our global culture so slow torespond to these findings? Why does our culturecontinue to reward behaviour that is destroyingthe biophysical basis for human existence whenthat behaviour does not increase our well-being?A revitalized economics can shed some light onthis question.

THE CULTURAL SELECTION OF(UN)SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOUR:A GENERALIZED DARWINIANAPPROACH

Economics reached its dominant position by focus-ing on individual incentives as the driving force ineconomic processes. In recent decades a restrictiveinterpretation of this insight has narrowed thepolicy focus of most economists on monetaryincentives and on increasing economic output asthe only means of promoting social welfare. Butthere is much to be gained by returning to the basicprinciples established by orthodox and heterodoxeconomists alike; namely, that people respond toincentives, generally act according to their per-ceived best interests, and that the objective ofpublic policy should be to insure ‘the greatest goodfor the greatest number.’ A framework for incorpo-rating these basic economic insights is ‘generalizedDarwinism’ (Hodgson and Knutsen 2004). It offersa way to integrate the role of individual incentives,broadly defined, into an analysis of the evolution ofwhole societies.

Generalized Darwinism is the proposition thatsocial evolution, like biological evolution, can beunderstood in terms of the basic principles of varia-tion, selection and inheritance of particular traits.This approach has the potential to provide a theo-retical foundation for an empirically-based modelof economic rationality and this has far-reachingimplications for economic theory and publicpolicy. Studies of cultural evolution have beenlimited by the conflict between methodologicalindividualism and methodological collectivism.This conflict has frequently led to ‘either-or’approaches that try to explain social phenomenasolely by applying tools developed for individualbehaviour, or by building social models that ignorethe heterogeneous nature of individual actors.Contemporary Darwinism was designed to



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

integrate levels of analysis — genes, individuals,and populations — and is wholly appropriate toanalyze the relationships between individualbehaviour, cultural norms and social evolution.The starting point of generalized Darwinism is thatthe evolution of cultural traits, like the evolution ofbiological organisms, is driven by the process ofvariation, selection and inheritance of those traits.Richerson and Boyd (2005), Hodgson and Knutsen(2004) and others argue that in studying the evolu-tion of socio-economic systems there is no alterna-tive to these core Darwinian principles. Otherproposed analytical frameworks such as self-organization or Lamarckian evolution mustlogically fall under the umbrella of generalizedDarwinism. It is also true that this framework isincomplete without an understanding of thespecific details of how the Darwinian mechanismworks to select particular patterns of humanbehaviour.

In human cultures, with elaborate systems ofrewards and punishments, almost any kind ofbehaviour can be selected (Boyd and Richerson1992). The plasticity of human nature provides thevariation upon which selection pressures work. Thecritical question then is how disparate patterns ofindividual behaviour are selected and propagatedby specific cultures. This question is critical toaddressing the problem of the environmental andsocial stability of human cultures. Rewards andpunishments are used in human cultures to passon traits that may be culturally desirable in theshort run but may be disastrous in the end(Diamond 2005).

The co-evolution of individual behaviour,culture, and economic institutions

A current line of research addressing the questionof sustainability is analyzing in detail the history ofentire cultures. The study of whole societies is, ofcourse, a long-established tradition in anthropo-logy. Especially influential today in cultural-resource-institutional evolution is the pioneeringwork of Leslie White (1949) and Julian Steward(1955). Archaeological data and historical docu-ments can provide the centuries-long time scalesneeded to examine the conditions for sustainabilityor collapse. Particularly revealing are studies ofthe long-term consequences of substituting tech-nology for increasing resource scarcity (Erickson

and Gowdy 2000; Tainter 1988). A striking fact isthe sheer number of post-hunter-gatherer culturesthat followed the pattern of overshoot and collapse.These include all the major Mesopotamian civiliza-tions, the Mayans, the Anasazi of the US southwest,and the Indus valley. They all experienced a periodof rapid resource use, rapid population growththen a relatively sudden economic, social andbiological collapse (Diamond 2005).

Many cultures exploited their environments to apoint at which they were so vulnerable they wereunable to maintain the cultures they had so pain-stakingly established (Tainter 2000). Probably thebest-known example is Easter Island. Over thecourse of about 500 years Polynesian settlers soeroded the resource base that the peak populationof about 10,000 people was reduced to a few hun-dred living in a state of constant warfare and depri-vation (Bahn and Flenley 1992; Erickson andGowdy 2000; van Tilberg 1994). The burning ques-tion in the Easter Island case is why the populationcould not correctly assess their situation andchange their socially destructive behaviour. It is avery small island — from the highest vantage pointit is possible to see the whole island — and thedestruction caused by deforestation should havebeen obvious. A similar pattern of overshoot andcollapse also occurred on the islands of Mangaia(Kirch et al. 1992), Mangareva, Pitcairn andHenderson (Diamond 1997).

Some past societies, like Easter Island, havemoved rapidly along the overshoot-and-collapsecurve. Others took much longer to make the transi-tion from a stable state to instability and collapse.But some post-hunter-gatherer societies managedto avoid the trap altogether. One society thatapparently escaped the fate of so many others is theSouth Pacific island culture of Tikopia. Archaeo-logical data indicate that Tikopia was headed downand had rapid population growth – but somehowmanaged to achieve a stable existence. Archaeo-logical and ethnographic evidence indicates thatthe South Pacific Island of Tikopia is one of onlya few cases of a successful transition from non-sustainability to sustainability (Erickson and Gowdy2000). The island was settled about 3,000 BP andthe first inhabitants quickly transformed the land-scape through forest clearing and slash and burnagriculture. Many species of native birds werehunted to extinction and it appeared that the islandwas headed down the same overshoot and collapse



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

path as in Easter Island. But somehow the peopleof Tikopia were apparently able to assess the pre-carious situation they were in and take correctivemeasures to prevent collapse. Sometime aroundAD 1700 archaeological evidence shows that pigsand dogs were eliminated from the island (Kirchand Yen 1982: 353). Slash and burn agriculture wasreplaced with a ‘complex system of fruit and nuttrees forming an upper canopy, with aroids, yams,and other shade tolerant crops under these.’ Somevarieties of fish that once formed a significantportion of the diet were no longer eaten and fromthe ethnographic record considered tapu. TheTikopians also adopted a variety of customs to insuresustainable resource use and zero populationgrowth (Firth 1967).

Something fairly unique about Tikopia allowedthis culture to overcome institutional sunk costsand move to a sustainable way of living. This hadsomething to do with the interaction between thecharacteristics of the resource base and the selec-tion mechanisms for institutional change andinstitutional lock-in. The critical question then, inaddressing the environmental and social stabilityof human cultures, is how disparate patterns ofindividual behaviour are selected and propagatedby specific cultures. Rewards and punishments areused in human cultures to pass on traits that may beculturally desirable in the short run but may bedisastrous in the end. In the cases of social collapse,sustainable patterns of behaviour are filtered out bycultural selection mechanisms and unsustainablepatterns are reinforced. Understanding how thisprocess works is critical to formulating effectivesustainable social and environmental policies.

THE SUSTAINABILITY OF GLOBALCAPITALISM: A CAUTIOUSLYPESSIMISTIC VIEW

The word collapse is widely used to describe the fallof past civilizations (Diamond 2005; Tainter 1988)but the demise of most of these societies was notsudden or final. Remnant populations survived andthey were usually able to migrate to other areas,sometimes without a dramatic decline in materialwell-being. But past societies collapsed local eco-systems and now humans are in danger collapsingglobal systems. Still it would be foolish to predict theimminent collapse of global capitalism. Such pre-dictions have been made many times before and yet

the system rolls on apparently unaffected by any ofthe potential calamities listed above. Yet if we asknot ‘when’ but ‘whether’ the current world systemwill collapse, the answer would seem to be a clear‘yes.’ That answer comes not only from an exami-nation of the current consensus on twenty-firstcentury scenarios on climate change, fossil fuelexhaustion and the diffusion of weapons of massdestruction technology, but also on a growing bodyof research on past societies that have exhibited thesame general pattern as our own.

So what can be done, if anything, to make theradical changes needed to avoid social collapse?Are current suggestions for sustainability policiesfeasible? The answer has to be a cautious ‘no’. Butthere is a glimmer of hope if the neo-liberalworldview driving public policy catches up withcontemporary economic theory.

Sustainability and incremental policies – A well-established theory in economics is the theory of thesecond best (Lipsey and Lancaster 1956). Basicallythis theorem states that if the conditions for effi-ciency are violated in several markets, correctingthe conditions in one market alone will likely movethe economy further away from an efficient solu-tion. Applied to sustainability it means that chang-ing one thing alone will not move us closer tosustainability and may move us further away. Forexample, greatly improving energy efficiencywould have the effect of reducing demand andlowering energy prices, so that more energy wouldbe used (this is the rebound or Jevons effect).

Sustainable consumption – It is argued above that,because of demonstration effects and habituation,higher incomes do not make people happier. How-ever, just because economic growth does not makeus happier this does not mean that stopping growthwill not affect our happiness. Many of us havebecome habituated to a steady stream of newproducts. Like any addiction we need more andmore of the fix just to keep us in the same place.Moving to no-growth or steady state economyrequires policies to address the psychologicaldependence on consumption being fostered by theglobal marketplace. A first step would be to strictlycontrol advertising designed to foster a culture ofconsumption.

Sustainability and the illusion of the steady state – Inthe current context of globalization and economic‘rationalization’, for one country to slow or stopeconomic growth would amount to unilateral



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

disarmament. When economic growth slows, sodoes capital formation, meaning that a non-growing country’s capital stock would quicklybecome outdated and non-competitive. Neithershould the link between military power and eco-nomic growth be ignored. The world is now a singlesocio-economic system and as long as nations com-pete with each other for markets and military powerit may not be desirable for one country or even onelarge region to move to a steady state economy.Added to this is the growth imperative of empires,including contemporary Western capitalism. Whenpast empires ceased to grow, a variety of relateddestructive forces came into play.

Do cultures have free will? A dominant pattern ofcultural evolution since the advent of agriculture isovershoot and collapse. Cultures seem to becomelocked into patterns of behaviour that were success-ful in early stages of development but dysfunctionalin later stages. Over time cultures build up a com-plex superstructure of material capital, learnedpatterns of behaviour, and ethical systems. ‘Sunkcosts’ include not only capital and technology butalso social systems of beliefs justifying the estab-lished way of doing things. These social systemsreinforce the power elites that invariably controlcomplex societies. Those who have the most to lose

by dramatic changes have the power to rewardthose who accept the status quo and punish thosewho do not.

Those few cultures, such as Tikopia, that wereable to change course did so because they wereapparently able to modify behavioural incentivesto reward sustainable behaviour. Two kinds ofsocieties that were able to do this are egalitariansocieties with small populations that worked bybottom up consensus and top-down hierarchicalsocieties like Tokugawa, Japan that could imposesustainability by decree (Diamond 2005). Neitherof these models is feasible in today’s global marketeconomy of competing nations.

These concluding comments may seem pessi-mistic but the history of the collapse of past societies— and the mounting evidence of our ownunsustainability — strongly suggests that piecemealchange will not be enough. It is better to face thefuture realistically from where we are rather than topretend that limited measures within a business-as-usual framework will get us through the popula-tion and resource bottleneck of the currentcentury.

‘If a path to the better there be, it begins with afull look at the worst.’

— Thomas Hardy

REFERENCESBahn P and Flenley J. Easter Island, Earth Island.

London and New York: Thames and Hudson; 1992Blanchflower D and Oswald D. Well-being over time in

Britain and the U.S.A. NBER Working Paper 7481.Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of EconomicAnalysis; 2000

Bowles S, Choi J and Hopfensitz A. The co-evolution ofindividual behaviours and social institutions. Santa FeInstitute Working Paper; 2002

Bowles S and Gintis H. Walrasian economics in retro-spect. Quarterly Journal of Economics 2000;115:1411–39

Boyd R and Richerson P. Punishment allows the evolu-tion of cooperation (or anything else) in sizablegroups. Journal of Ethology and Sociobiology 1992;13:171–95

Brown P. Scientists bewildered by sharp rise of CO2

in atmosphere for second year running. TheGuardian, October 11, 2004

Camerer C and Fehr E. When does ‘economic man’dominate social behaviour? Science 2006;311,47–52

Diamond J. Paradises Lost. Discover Magazine,November 1997:69–78

Diamond J. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail orSucceed. New York: Viking Press; 2005

Diener E, Diener M and Diener C. Factors predictingthe well-being of nations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 1995;69:851–64

Easterbrook G. There goes the neighborhood. NewYork Times, January 30, 2005

Easterlin R. Income and happiness: Towards a unifiedtheory. Economic Journal 2001;111:465–84

Erickson J and Gowdy J. Resource use, institutions andsustainability: A tale of two Pacific Island cultures.Land Economics 2000;76(3):345–54

Firth R. The Work of the Gods in Tikopia. ‘The Proclama-tion at Rarokoka.’ London: University of London,Athlone Press; 1967: 7

Frey B. A constitution of knaves crowds out civicvirtues. Economic Journal 1997;107:1043–53

Frey B and Stutzer A. Happiness and Economics: How theEconomy and Institutions Affect Well-Being. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press; 2002



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Giampietro M and Mayumi K. Multiple-scale inte-grated assessment of societal metabolism: Intro-ducing the approach. Population and Environment2000;22:109–53

Gowdy J. Co-evolutionary Economics: The Economy, Societyand the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1994

Gowdy J (ed.). Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Readeron Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment.Washington, DC: Island Press; 1998

Gowdy J. The revolution in welfare economics and itsimplications for environmental valuation andpolicy. Land Economics 2004;80:239–57

Gowdy J. Toward a new welfare foundation forsustainability. Ecological Economics 2005;53:211–22

Gowdy J and Erickson J. The approach of ecologicaleconomics. Cambridge Journal of Economics 2005;29:207–22

Hall C. Quantifying Sustainable Development. San Diego:Academic Press; 2000

Hansen J, Nazarenko L, Ruedy R, Sato M, Willis J, DelGenio A, Koch D, Lacis A, Lo K, Menon S, NovakovT, Perlwitz J, Russell G, Schmidt G and Tausnev N.Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation andimplications. Scienceexpress; April 29, 2005

Henderson J and Quandt J. Microeconomic Theory: AMathematical Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill;1980

Hodgson G and Knutsen T. Why we need a general-ized Darwinism: and why generalized Darwinismis not enough. Paper presented at the workshop‘Evolutionary Concepts in Economics and Biology’, MaxPlanck Institute for Research into EconomicSystems, Evolutionary Economics Group, Jena,Germany, December 2–4, 2004

Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: psycho-logy for behavioural economics. American EconomicReview 2003;93:1449–75

Kasser T. The High Price of Materialism. Cambridge MA:MIT Press; 2002

Kirch P, Flenley J, Steadman D, Lamont D and DawsonS. Ancient environmental degradation: Pre-historic human impacts on an island ecosystem:Mangaia, Central Polynesia. National GeographicResearch and Exploration 1992;8:166–79

Kirch P and Yen D. Tikopia: Prehistory and Ecology ofa Polynesian Outlier. Bernice P. Bishop MuseumBulletin, Honolulu, 1982;238

Koning N and Jongeneel R. Neo-Paretian WelfareEconomics: Misconceptions and Abuses. WageningenEconomic Papers, 05–97, Wageningen University,The Netherlands, 1997

Layard R. Happiness: Has social science got a clue? LionelRobbins Memorial Lecture Series, London Schoolof Economics, March 3, 4 and 5, 2003

Lipsey R and Lancaster K. The general theory of sec-ond best. Review of Economic Studies 1956;24:11–32

McDaniel C and Gowdy J. Paradise for Sale. BerkeleyCA: University of California Press; 2000

Meyer SM. End of the wild. Boston Review 2004;29(2):April/May

Ng YK. A case for happiness, cardinalism, and inter-personal comparability. Economic Journal 1997;107:1848–58

Richerson P and Boyd R. Not by Genes Alone. ChicagoIL: University of Chicago Press; 2005

Sahlins M. The sadness of sweetness: A native anthro-pology of Western cosmology. Current Anthropology1996;37:395–428

Solow R. Sustainability: An economist’s perspective. InDorfman R and Dorfman N (eds), Selected Readingsin Environmental Economics. New York: Norton;1993:179–87

Steward J. The Theory of Cultural Change: The Methodo-logy of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana IL: Universityof Illinois Press; 1955

Stiglitz J. Whither Socialism? Cambridge MA: MIT Press;1994

Tainter J. The Collapse of Complex Societies. London:Cambridge University Press; 1988

Tainter J. Problem solving: Complexity, history,sustainability. Population and Environment: A Journalof Interdisciplinary Studies 2000;22:3–41

Terbourgh J. Requiem for Nature. Washington, DC:Island Press; 1999

van Tilberg JA. Easter Island: Archaeology, Ecology andCulture. Washington DC: Smithsonian InstitutePress; 1994

Tilman D, May R, Lehman C and Nowak M. Habitatdestruction and the extinction debt. Nature 1994;371:65–6

Turchin P. Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall.Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press; 2005

Veblen T. Why is economics not an evolutionary sci-ence? Quarterly Journal of Economics 1898;12:373–97

Wallerstein I. World Systems Analysis. Durham NC andLondon:Duke University Press; 2004

Welsch H. Preferences over prosperity and pollution:Environmental valuation based on happinesssurveys. Kyklos 2002;55:473–94

White L. The Science of Culture. New York: Grove Press;1949



Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

00:

13 1

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Avoiding self-organized extinction: Toward a co-evolutionary economics of sustainability